Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

radcen · Nov 13, 2017

Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

A person who will blindly follow whatever their "side" says or does, and will blindly slam the other side solely because it's the other side, regardless any factual aspects.

FieldTheorist · Nov 13, 2017

radcen said:
Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

A person who will blindly follow whatever their "side" says or does, and will blindly slam the other side solely because it's the other side, regardless any factual aspects.

Yes, it's about 40%-50% of the voting country. About 25-33% are hard Republican partisans, and some 18-26% are hard Democratic partisans. Watching corporate cable news helps make new partisan purists.

TheGoverness · Nov 13, 2017

radcen said:
Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

A person who will blindly follow whatever their "side" says or does, and will blindly slam the other side solely because it's the other side, regardless any factual aspects.

Yes. There are liberal partisan hacks and conservative partisan hacks; who overgeneralize and smear the opposition as evil scumbags with no redeeming values whatsoever. And both forms of partisan hackery are wrong.

Many exist right here on this forum. And I make it my job to retaliate against all forms of political hackery.

#MakeAmericaReasonableAgain

ecofarm · Nov 13, 2017

Innocent until proven guilty!!

Has anyone been convicted??

Cardinal · Nov 13, 2017

radcen said:
Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

A person who will blindly follow whatever their "side" says or does, and will blindly slam the other side solely because it's the other side, regardless any factual aspects.

My understanding of a partisan hack is somebody who changes the foundation of his principles in pursuit of the defense of his side and the attack on the other. Yes, obviously we have those here.

cpwill · Nov 13, 2017

radcen said:
Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

A person who will blindly follow whatever their "side" says or does, and will blindly slam the other side solely because it's the other side, regardless any factual aspects.

... Have you not been paying attention to the Moore debates?

cpwill · Nov 13, 2017

Cardinal said:
My understanding of a partisan hack is somebody who changes the foundation of his principles in pursuit of the defense of their side and the attack on the other. Yes, obviously we have those here.

Self-described "Evangelicals" are now more likely than any other group to say it doesn't matter if a politician commits egregious moral abuses.

Though it rips me in two inside, I'd have to say we've pretty much proved the OP with that alone

Cardinal · Nov 13, 2017

cpwill said:
Self-described "Evangelicals" are now more likely than any other group to say it doesn't matter if a politician commits egregious moral abuses.

Though it rips me in two inside, I'd have to say we've pretty much proved the OP with that alone

Well, that's certainly a step further than my personal definition. It may be that my definition is obsolete, because the disingenuous claim to principles has given way to stating that victory at all costs is preeminent to the exclusion of principles.

1:27 will take your breath away (if you haven't been made thoroughly numb by the events of the last year and a half already):

radcen · Nov 13, 2017

cpwill said:
Self-described "Evangelicals" are now more likely than any other group to say it doesn't matter if a politician commits egregious moral abuses.

Though it rips me in two inside, I'd have to say we've pretty much proved the OP with that alone

Just the latest example in an ever-increasing list of how politics have utterly flip-flopped. If a book had been written like this as recently as five years ago it would have been laughed out of town.

And it's all about who over what. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

SmokeAndMirrors · Nov 13, 2017

cpwill said:
Self-described "Evangelicals" are now more likely than any other group to say it doesn't matter if a politician commits egregious moral abuses.

Though it rips me in two inside, I'd have to say we've pretty much proved the OP with that alone

That was exactly the report I had in mind when I read this. Obviously there's about a million others from all sides from the last 6 months alone, but that one just struck me silent with its sheer insanity. Going out of one's way to condone depravity for the mere intent of getting a dig in on the other side.

I mean, even 15 years ago, can you imagine Bush surviving a re-election campaign if he had, say, cheated on his wife and been outted? With how much his voting block depended on Evangelicals? Not a chance.

And now they're intentionally supporting a rapist simply out of spite.

We have officially jumped the shark.

radcen · Nov 13, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
That was exactly the report I had in mind when I read this. Obviously there's about a million others from all sides from the last 6 months alone, but that one just struck me silent with its sheer insanity. Going out of one's way to condone depravity for the mere intent of getting a dig in on the other side.

I mean, even 15 years ago, can you imagine Bush surviving a re-election campaign if he had, say, cheated on his wife and been outted? With how much his voting block depended on Evangelicals? Not a chance.

And now they're intentionally supporting a rapist simply out of spite.

We have officially jumped the shark.

Yes!!! That summarizes it perfectly.

vesper · Nov 13, 2017

Yes there is such a thing as a political hack. But there is also deep divisions of thought between different groups and when one sincerely has a total different viewpoint and consistently asseverates for it that does not automatically make this person a hack.

A hack is a person who is part of a political party, but whose intentions are more aligned with victory than personal conviction.

cpwill · Nov 13, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
That was exactly the report I had in mind when I read this. Obviously there's about a million others from all sides from the last 6 months alone, but that one just struck me silent with its sheer insanity. Going out of one's way to condone depravity for the mere intent of getting a dig in on the other side.

I mean, even 15 years ago, can you imagine Bush surviving a re-election campaign if he had, say, cheated on his wife and been outted? With how much his voting block depended on Evangelicals? Not a chance.

And now they're intentionally supporting a rapist simply out of spite.

We have officially jumped the shark.

To be fair,

1. Mostly they are insisting he's done nothing wrong, and it's all a ConSpiraceh!, etc.
2. I don't think Moore has been accused of Rape.

But yeah. Remember back when the Huge Bad Awful Thing was that Bush had had a DUI decades before? Or that Romney had tried to hire women to serve in his administration as a governor?

SmokeAndMirrors · Nov 13, 2017

cpwill said:
To be fair,

1. Mostly they are insisting he's done nothing wrong, and it's all a ConSpiraceh!, etc.
2. I don't think Moore has been accused of Rape.

But yeah. Remember back when the Huge Bad Awful Thing was that Bush had had a DUI decades before? Or that Romney had tried to hire women to serve in his administration as a governor?

Ah yeah, apparently of the reports we have so far, there was one that was an attempted rape she apparently escaped. Still, sick twisted ****.

I never thought the Bush years would seem like The Good Old Days by way of comparison.

apdst · Nov 13, 2017

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Ah yeah, apparently of the reports we have so far, there was one that was an attempted rape she apparently escaped. Still, sick twisted ****.

I never thought the Bush years would seem like The Good Old Days by way of comparison.

But when it's a Democrat, it goes without notice.

radcen · Nov 13, 2017

apdst said:
But when it's a Democrat, it goes without notice.

For some reason I thought you were older than 6 years old and remembered Bill Clinton. And Anthony Weiner. And Gary Hart. And John Edwards. And Eliot Spitzer. And Barney Frank. And Gary Condit. And Gerry Studds. And...

eohrnberger · Nov 13, 2017

apdst said:
But when it's a Democrat, it goes without notice.

Sure seems that way.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...d-ethics-coverage-moore-near-silence-menendez

Only conclusion which seems to be drawn is that the media is complicit in doing it, i.e. without notice.

apdst · Nov 13, 2017

radcen said:
For some reason I thought you were older than 6 years old and remembered Bill Clinton. And Anthony Weiner. And Gary Hart. And John Edwards. And Eliot Spitzer. And Barney Frank. And Gary Condit. And Gerry Studds. And...

What about David Alcon?

eohrnberger · Nov 13, 2017

apdst said:
What about David Alcon?

A Democrat running for Congress in New Mexico's second district was found and arrested at an apartment complex in Albuquerque on Friday, nearly two weeks after an arrest warrant was issued for him.
David Alcon is now behind bars after a woman accused him of stalking her, according to local station KRQE News 13.
The woman, who attended a Halloween party at a hotel in Santa Fe on Oct. 28, said she started receiving persistent text messages from Alcon—one with a picture of his genitals, some suggesting that he was watching her, and others professing his love for her.

Democratic Congressional Candidate Arrested for Stalking in New Mexico

Hmm. Haven't heard a single report about this either.

Just because one party doesn't care what sort of characters run in their name and gain support from their party doesn't mean that the other party has to do the same.

Standards for candidacy need to be raised, and not eliminated or ignored.

apdst · Nov 13, 2017

eohrnberger said:
Hmm. Haven't heard a single report about this either.

Just because one party doesn't care what sort of characters run in their name and gain support from their party doesn't mean that the other party has to do the same.

Standards for candidacy need to be raised, and not eliminated or ignored.

This will be ignored; ignored by the same folks who are wetting their pants over Roy Moore.

radcen · Nov 13, 2017

apdst said:
What about David Alcon?

So you agree that there are plenty of Dem examples out there in open view.

eohrnberger · Nov 14, 2017

apdst said:
This will be ignored; ignored by the same folks who are wetting their pants over Roy Moore.

Yeah, I suspect so, as is clear with the distinct and suspicious lack of hardly any coverage of Democrat Senator Menendez's corruption and bribery trial. Following in Clinton footsteps I guess.

No clearer indication that the news (political propaganda) media is indeed exactly that, political propaganda.

apdst · Nov 14, 2017

radcen said:
So you agree that there are plenty of Dem examples out there in open view.

That's really all you have to say? No condemnation of Alcon's arrest for stalking a woman?

apdst · Nov 14, 2017

eohrnberger said:
Yeah, I suspect so, as is clear with the distinct and suspicious lack of hardly any coverage of Democrat Senator Menendez's corruption and bribery trial. Following in Clinton footsteps I guess.

No clearer indication that the news (political propaganda) media is indeed exactly that, political propaganda.

That's exactly right. The folks who think everyone is a political hack, but themselves, will ignore the **** out of this one. It sure as hell won't get the same action that Moore's situation got.

Manc Skipper · Nov 14, 2017

apdst said:
That's really all you have to say? No condemnation of Alcon's arrest for stalking a woman?

How does this even begin to compare with Moore being banned from a mall for perving on young girls?

Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

Is there such a thing as a partisan hack?

Yes, they exist... on BOTH sides.

Yes, they exist... on the other side.

No, they do not exist. They're just people with strong opinions.

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Little Miss Sunshine

global liberation

Respected On All Sides

Respected On All Sides

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Wrinkly member